May 12, 2009

Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says:

"Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something government should discourage the consumption of."

It's just sugar. Lots of things are full of sugar. Why single out the watery versions of sugar? And why be so sure that diet soda is not worse? Quite aside from the strange chemicals, diet soda seems to free many people to pig out on other fattening foods. Our terrible obesity problem correlates with the consumption of diet soda, not sugar.

In any case, what is the point, to raise money or to change what we consume? These are opposite goals.

But maybe I should be all for this devious scheme. I rarely drink soda, diet or sugared. And tax some other things I don't use, why don't you?

197 comments:

This "scientist" is on to a new way to purefy the carbon based life forms polluting his planet. Deny them cheap access to sugar...You do know what is in sugar don't you. Then move on to a tax on potatoes and cake and cookies. At last we are being scientific again.

Whenever I read the words "Center for Science in the Public Interest" I have the same reaction as when I read the words "Family Research Council", both dogmatic moralist organizations with totalitarian notions of the State's power to regulate and restrict my freedom. These kinds of organizations would be dismissible if they didn't so frequently have their fingers so close to the trigger of power.

Groups like the "Center for Science in the Public Interest" are little more than a handful of zealots with a fax machine. Reporters are lazy, so they'll print the press releases from outfits like this without stopping to ask just who they are and what are their qualifications. It's like how they Press keeps going to John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists and GlobalSecurity.org on military or space matters. He's in no way qualified to discuss any of these topics but he makes for an easy soundbite.

I've actually considered doing an experiment. I want to create a fake organization and send out press releases to various media outlets and see how many of them get reported without any follow up. Actually, the experiment would be better to set up two fake organizations, one liberal and the other conservative. Each would send out releases with their slant and see which one is more likely to get reported.

And this is how totalitarianism begins, by the way. The State usurps some basic industry like health care then claims that it has the right to regulate your lifestyle "because of the enormous cost of bad lifestyle choices to State-run health care". Then they usurp another basic industry like the petroleum industry and then claim that they have the right to regulate what you drive and where you can drive it "because of the enormous cost to the State-run petroleum industry and the enormous strain on the environment caused by your bad choices".

Soon every aspect of your life is administered and regulated by the State. And it doesn't happen by totalitarian thugs suddenly breaking down your door one night. They seduce you slowly, with offers of universal health care and economic stimulus, until they're in bed with you and you suddenly realize that while they've been whispering in your ear and caressing you, you've been handcuffed and tied to the bedposts.

Then they can rape you as often and as violently as they like.

It seems a trivial thing, soda, something I rarely ever drink. But the trip to hell begins with a single step and a 4 dollar can of Coke.

In any case, what is the point, to raise money or to change what we consume? These are opposite goals..

Not really. Hell the expansion of SCHIP program is funded largely by tobbaco taxes which in turn is causing a massive decline in consumption which is a good thing. On the other hand, less consumption means less taxes and if they can't fund SCHIP with tobacco taxes then that means they'll need to raise revenue with another form of taxes. So it's really not an opposite goal, its killing two birds with one stone. Eliminate or drastically reduce tobacco use and then later claim the need for increased taxes because of the children. It's a win win for more government.

Today it may be soda pop, tomorrow it may include diet soda, but almost always it's the consumer aspect of American society that's in the crosshairs of "public interest" groups. Whatever is popular, whatever people are spending their money on.

They seduce you slowly, with offers of universal health care and economic stimulus, until they're in bed with you and you suddenly realize that while they've been whispering in your ear and caressing you, you've been handcuffed and tied to the bedposts.

The biggest beef I have with this is that a fraction of the working population is actually paying for all these government services. When roughly 40% of the nation is paying for the rest of the 60% I call bullshit. Honestly I'd have less of an issue with universal health care as long as every swinging cod is paying thier fair share. That means whether you're making $20K or $250K, you have to kick in something otherwise you're nothing but a hanger on with no stake in the system, just dependency.

Something tells me that the Iowa/Midwest corn producers are not going to be happy with this. (As a slight point: soda usually contains high fructose corn syrup, not sugar.)

The more logical step, rather than daemonising a particular food group, would be to just tax sugar, fat, corn syrup, and the like. Not that I, as a cocaovore, would actually endorse any of that, but it would at least make sense.

They seduce you slowly, with offers of universal health care and economic stimulus, until they're in bed with you and you suddenly realize that while they've been whispering in your ear and caressing you, you've been handcuffed and tied to the bedposts.If it weren't the government doing the seducing, caressing, and handcuffing to the bedposts, that would be kind of hot.

I know I mentioned this once before but if you have never seen the movie, I recommend watching Demolition Man with Wesley Snipes and Sly Stallone. Typical action flick set in the near future where all 'bad things' are illegal (swearing, fast food, tobacco, only health food is allowed, etc. )It seemed ridiculous at the time but considering how we're either taxing it to extiction (tobbaco, soda) or making it outright illegal (trans-fats) it is eerily prophetic.

The campaign for govt health care is in full swing. Yesterday, we saw them orchestrate a media blitz that claims they found $2 Trillion in future savings (who knew that a labor union, SEIU, could cut health care costs) and now today this libtard group suggests a way to find more tax revs to fund it.

Palladian said... "But the trip to hell begins with a single step and a 4 dollar can of Coke."

And that sums up a lot of the non-thought on this board...expect the worst and plan that all parties involved will behave badly. Such low expectations you have.

the point of the article is sound. aside from the gazillion plastic bottles and tin cans sugared drinks do very little for anyone except help people get fat faster, destroy teeth and eat up stomach linings.

Absolutely. As anyone who has ever had a Coke made in Mexico or Latin America can attest, there is no comparison. Coke made with cane sugar versus corn syrup. The Mexican Coke wins hands down. Rum and Coke with cane sugar..... YUM.

This government intrusion into every aspect of our lives is getting worse and worse. First they come for the Crisco (ruining my southern fried chicken) then they came for the incandescent lights and now Obama is planning to regulate our heating by remote control. :-) I'm being sarcastic a bit here but I'm also very serious. As someone else said. It is the little things and it is insidious.

"aside from the gazillion plastic bottles and tin cans sugared drinks do very little for anyone except help people get fat faster, destroy teeth and eat up stomach linings."

Probably true. But why is that your business?

And I know you're 89 years old and in some sort of facility for the deranged, but soda cans aren't made of tin anymore, but aluminum. And aluminum is the easiest and most cost-effective consumer packaging material to recycle.

Because once we are all paying for health insurance, then the government will have the right to run your entire life in the name of keeping health care costs low. never mind the fact that in fact a heart attack at 40 is about the cheapest way to die available, no, no, these busybodies will run your whole life.

Don't believe me? they used exactly this issue in NYC to ban trans-fatty acids. This new concept of liberalism is amazing. You are free to committ sexual acts that were once banned as sodomy, but you are not free to smoke. But you know, only one of those activities were legal at the founding.

It seems to me that if gay sex is a matter of free choice, so should eating a cheeseburger and having a soda with it.

Perhaps each day the State Nannies should like to sit us down in Community Circles where we can be Given sippy cups with State Approved Healthful Beverages and State Approved Healthful Snacks, and if all of us should behave oh so well we shall be Allowed fifteen minutes to play on the State Approved Padding Ensconced Jungle Gym.

And that sums up a lot of the non-thought on this board...expect the worst and plan that all parties involved will behave badly. Such low expectations you have. .

Isn't that pretty much the bedrock of contemporary liberal ideology; low expectations of all? Isn't that why you insist that the Federal government pay for cradle to grave care plus asswiping services in between because it takes a village to raise child?

you can still get an abortion or the morning after pill without Mom or Dad's knowledge.

The problem is that girls can have intercourse without Mom or Dad's written approval.

I'd see it as girls can't handle credit any better than they could handle pregnancy, childbirth, or parenthood.

Back to ethanol: A combination of drinking trends and MADD meant a decline in corn likker consumption during the 1970s. The second oil shock promoted adding ethanol to gas to stretch fuel supplies and (all together now) reduce our dependence on foreign oil. One result was that ADM bought the Hiram Walker distillery in Peoria,Illinois around 1980.

The truth is, obesity is at the core of our health problems and health costs, in this country. To discourage it's use (sugared and diet) with a bit of a tax has a lot of up-side to it.Actually, not so much. It's cheaper, from a lifelong cost perspective, to have people be obese and bite the dust when they are 50. They die of a heart attack, never collect Social Security, never retire, and don't hit the medical system for 30 years with various ailments.

If you actually wanted to reduce health care spending, you would push to increase obesity. Dead people are cheap.

Palladian said... "Probably true. But why is that your business?And I know you're 89 years old and in some sort of facility for the deranged, but soda cans aren't made of tin anymore, but aluminum. And aluminum is the easiest and most cost-effective consumer packaging material to recycle."

Such easy pickings...first of all "tin can" is an expression as is "pin head" (knowing full well that your head isn't made of pins....but I digress). Yes aluminum cans recycle well but about 20 BILLLION of them a year don't make it back for their 5cent deposit. Plastic bottles not recycled approach 40 billion and they last about 1000 years.

“fructose, a member of a group of carbohydrates known as simple sugars, or monosaccharides. Fructose, along with glucose, occurs in fruits, honey, and syrups; it also occurs in certain vegetables. It is a component, along with glucose, of the disaccharide sucrose, or common table sugar.”

So, where does one find this supposedly non-fructose containing “real sugar”?

They're just running out of ways to tax tobacco is all. Like tobacco taxes, a soda tax will probably hurt the poor more than the rich. The poor will probably cut back on their fruit and vegetable consumption to be able to afford soda.

Thanks. It just amazes me that people don't know what sugar is! And I remember back in the 80s when people thought fructose was fine but sucrose was terrible. I knew a perfectly intelligent lawprof who asserted that. It's all sugar, I said. And I don't think sugar is particularly good or bad. It's just empty calories. It's for you to decide if you want or need some empty calories. Maybe you do!

Actually, not so much. It's cheaper, from a lifelong cost perspective, to have people be obese and bite the dust when they are 50. They die of a heart attack, never collect Social Security, never retire, and don't hit the medical system for 30 years with various ailments.Too bad being overweight or even obese is not a predictor of heart attacks or just about any ailment. Diabetes is associated with being overweight, but which is causative isn't clear (nor does diabetes affect only those who are overweight.)

"So, where does one find this supposedly non-fructose containing “real sugar”?"

"Real Sugar" refers to "cane sugar". As you know, the high-fructose corn syrup used in soft drinks is approximately 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Cane sugar is nearly 100% sucrose. Different molecules with different structures. Sucrose, in my opinion, tastes better in foods and drinks and has a more positive effect on the mouth-feel of food and drinks as well.

How is it your business what I eat or drink?Fat people use up a lot of health care: doctor visits, blood and urine tests, blood pressure and cholesterol pills. All of this raises the cost of health insurance.

Joe: I've read it's not so much that overweight people live longer, but an artifact of data gathering: dying people lose weight.

“Real Sugar” refers to “cane sugar.” As you know, the high-fructose corn syrup used in soft drinks is approximately 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Cane sugar is nearly 100% sucrose. Different molecules with different structures. Sucrose, in my opinion, tastes better in foods and drinks and has a more positive effect on the mouth-feel of food and drinks as well.

You didn't read what I posted. Fructose is a principal component (along with glucose) of sucrose, and is found in ordinary table sugar, including cane sugar.

So, once again I ask: where does one find this supposedly non-fructose containing “real sugar”?

"Obese" elderly live longer than non-obese elderly. I'll try to find the cite for it, but I'm almost certain that unhealthy, fat people actually cost the system less than healthy people who live a long time.

Former Law Student: not to snark, but you're obviously not a scientist. One anecdote is not a representative sample.

Re: HFCS v. sugar. HFCS has about 55% fructose and 45% glucose, not the 50/50 mix you would find if you were to break down sugar into its component parts. As for the last element of that (off the top of my head): when you break down sugar, it undergoes stereoisomeric inversion, which, obviously, changes the chemical nature of it. Saying that sugar is just two molecules bonded together, so therefore, it should act like those individual molecules, is like saying that water should act like hydrogen and oxygen.

As for the last element of that (off the top of my head): when you break down sugar, it undergoes stereoisomeric inversion, which, obviously, changes the chemical nature of it. Saying that sugar is just two molecules bonded together, so therefore, it should act like those individual molecules, is like saying that water should act like hydrogen and oxygen.

Reference please!

Stereoisomers are related molecules in which all the atoms are linked together in the same order, but spatially twisted into a slightly different three-dimensional shape. Thus, a “stereoisomeric inversion” would appear to be a contradiction in terms — making your last inference above nonsensical.

Fat people use up a lot of health care: doctor visits, blood and urine tests, blood pressure and cholesterol pills. All of this raises the cost of health insurance.

If I drink sodas, how do you know I'm fat?

As to the rising cost of insurance with excessive use, I agree. But if I'm paying for it, and it is more expensive because may have health issues, how is that your business?

Perhaps when we get government rationed health care you can do a cost benefit analysis and determine that it is too expensive to treat fat people and they should just die. Hmmmmmm? Or that the 55 year old doesn't deserve a shoulder replacement or knee surgery because the amount of taxes that can be confiscated over their remaining working lifetime won't repay the cost of the surgery.

Do you really want government actuaries measuring our lives and rationing our health care. It's bad enough when insurance companies do it through their rate tier structures.

I know what your (and the so called liberal/progressives) REAL agenda is. You want to control every aspect of our lifes and you plan to use the "it's for your own good" excuse.

Be careful. That excuse can come back and bite YOU in the ass. It's the camel's nose under the tent.

Beets can't give you good brown sugar, or good molasses. Mmmm...molasses. That's the benefit of cane sugar.

Those HFCS ads (What? You get dietary information from your hair stylist?) annoy me just as much as CSPI press releases, btw. The simple truth is (IMO) that HFCS is the spoonful of cheap sugar that makes the lousily-made food go down. But if there's a market for it, why not?

Disclaimer: The family owns a corn/soybean farm in Ill-annoy, so I get money from the demand generated by HFCS and especially ethanol.

But if I'm paying for it, and it is more expensive because may have health issues, how is that your business?

Typically insurance spreads costs among the subscribers based on their demographics. If you have, for example, Aetna, all Aetna purchasers pay a portion of your health care, but the cost for women your age is based on the amount of health care women your age consume.

The problem isn't sugar, the problem is fat people. We need to tax fat people. Not only do they use more than their share of health care, they take up too much space in general. They're also unsightly and block our view of the attractive thin people behind them. They should pay for the many costs they impose on society.

Whether some people prefer the feel or taste of sucrose is not the issue. There's no accounting for taste, after all. Personally, I can't tell the difference in blind testing. What IS the issue is the hysteria about HFCS and how "bad" it is compared to sucrose.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has no real involvement with science nor the public interest. This is a group of radical whackos who has had nearly every warning proved false, after some of said warnings caused immense financial damage, sometimes to entire industries (think Alar).

As for the effect of stereochemistry and molecular properties, just consider the huge differences between cellulose and starch and what causes them.

The principal difference between starches and cellulose, as far as food value for humans and animals is concerned, is that animals and we can make the enzyme α-amylase (included in saliva as well as secreted by the pancreas) which breaks down starches into sugar, but do not possess the enzyme cellulase (only some bacteria and certain protozoa know about that) for breaking down cellulose into sugar.

I read somewhere that drinking soda contributes to Alzheimer's and I haven't been drinking soda since then. Something about the chemicals in soda, not the sugar. I will occasionally drink Sprite, which I for some reason imagine isn't that bad.

I see nothing wrong with this. The government has to have taxes, so why not tax that which we want less of. I would think having less obesity is a good thing. Taxing gasoline is a similar thing I could support.

They tax beer and wine. Why not the uproar over the alcohol tax?

Of course, there is an easier way to raise the price of soda. How about we stop SUBSIDIZING corn. That is why soda makers switched from sugar cane to corn syrup. And there is a lot of evidence that it is corn syrup that is making us fat.

Or maybe the government should just tax sugar in general, rather than taxing soda. Or you could tax sugar that makes up over a certain percentage or pre-packaged goods to try and discourage their use.

Most foods have way too much sugar anyway. Does Coke really need 9 grams of sugar? I'd like to know more about the reasoning behind this. I use one teaspoon of sugar in my coffee and it tastes sweet enough. I could understand 3 sugars if you want it really sweet. But 9 teaspoons? Aren't there diminishing returns?

The government has to have taxes, so why not tax that which we want less of

One obvious reason that comes to mind is it empowers majorities at the expense of less popular minorities. I would assume you would be against, say, a tax on sodomy, despite your belief that the majority want less of it.

It seems to me your position ought at least be backed by some requirement of the existence of externalities.

And I don't buy the argument that people were saying the opposite 20 years ago, therefore how are we supposed to believe what they are saying today.

Are we really supposed to pretend that scientists don't know what they're talking about? There has been a hell of a lot of progress in the study of nutrition over the last 20 years. We used to think that fat was bad for you. Now, we know that there are such things as good fats (monosaturated fats, etc. - which lower cholesterol) and bad fats (trans fats).

Will we learn more? Absolutely. Keep the research coming. And I have no qualms banning things like trans-fats, which only appeared in a modern diet any (last 100 years), can be replaced with no difference in taste and barely a blip in cost, and are very close to poison. Does anyone in New York City really miss their trans fats? is anyone there clamoring to get their trans fats backs? Do McDonalds fries in New York or Dunkin Donuts taste any different?

There is a tax on sodomy Sofa King. Gay marriage is banned, and that is an effective tax on gay couples who have to go through all sorts of complex legal arrangements, which are expensive, just to get a fraction of their rights.

Try again.

So your argument is that the government should tax things that we want more of? Or everything should be taxed equally? We should tax a polluter the same as we tax someone who uses environmentally friendly technology? We should tax cigarettes the same as we tax milk? We should tax subways the same as we tax cars? We should tax church bingo the same as we tax gambling?

Michael questioned this, because fructose is one component of the real sugar molecule:

So, where does one find this supposedly non-fructose containing “real sugar”?

Michael later told us that sucrose remained sucrose until it was broken down in the small intestine. (Although the hydrochloric acid found in the stomach inverts sucrose in the laboratory, for some reason Michael knows but I do not, the same HCl does not invert sucrose in the stomach.)

Thus sucrose remained distinct from fructose from the mouth through the stomach till the small intestine, i.e. during consumption. Only during later metabolism did sucrose become fructose. One might more justly say that starch is sugar, because salivary amylase starts breaking down starch in the mouth.

Thus it makes more sense to say that potatoes are the same as apples than it does to assert that sucrose contains fructose.

DTL Said: "I see nothing wrong with this. The government has to have taxes, so why not tax that which we want less of. I would think having less obesity is a good thing. Taxing gasoline is a similar thing I could support."

One could quibble with this, but I would like to focus on the "why not tax that which we want less of." part. Why isn't it clear and obvious that high taxes on income will produce...less income?

DTL Said: "And I have no qualms banning things like trans-fats, which only appeared in a modern diet any (last 100 years), can be replaced with no difference in taste and barely a blip in cost, and are very close to poison."

Thus it makes more sense to say that potatoes are the same as apples than it does to assert that sucrose contains fructose.

Only if one imagines (or is seeking to dissimulate by much arm-waving) that what happens in the mouth (as opposed to what gets absorbed into the body) is the end-all and be-all of existence. I don't happen to share that affectation.

Why? It seems you illustrated my point. Aren't those burdens you outlined justified by the fact that "we" want less sodomy?

So your argument is that the government should tax things that we want more of? Or everything should be taxed equally? We should tax a polluter the same as we tax someone who uses environmentally friendly technology? We should tax cigarettes the same as we tax milk? We should tax subways the same as we tax cars? We should tax church bingo the same as we tax gambling?

I think that such taxes ought at least be justified by the showing that the taxed behavior imposes negative externalities roughly equal to the size of the tax. So specially taxing polluters would be justified by the uncompensated costs that polluters impose on others. But what is the externality imposed by my decision to consume sugar or trans-fats or cigarettes?

Sugar is already heavily taxed — by a tariff that results in retail prices for sugar being perhaps thrice what they would be if one could import it from tropical countries like Brazil which can produce it efficiently. As a result products like Coke are virtually forced to use HFCS. (As this piece points out, a 1/10th of a cent increase in sweetener expense per serving would cost Coca-Cola more than $122 million.)

But what is the externality imposed by my decision to consume sugar or trans-fats or cigarettes?It's the increased cost of caring for you when you get diabetes or hyperglycemia or lung cancer - diseases that can, in many cases, be avoided. If you're on Medicare or Medicaid, then taxpayers are spending money that could have been spent elsewhere had you been a better decisionmaker. If you had private insurance, premiums go up for everyone to defray the disproportionate costs you impose on the overall system through your poor decisionmaking. See how that works? If we're going to have some form of national healthcare (and we already do, with Mdicaid and Medicare), doesn't it make sense to penalize behavior like that and funnel the money into health care? Why shouldn't you be required to absorb those costs?

The Puritans are always with us. It's just that the objects of their puritanism vary. Pornography and gambling are now harmless diversions. Cigarettes and sugar are tools of the devil....I have no objection to letting the feckless and the weak pay for my sense of superiority. Still one must observe that the sanctimonious have caused more wreckage than the carousers. During Prohibition the number of traffic fatalities plummeted. Nonetheless the aggregate number of untimely deaths skyrocketed as a result of organized crime and wood alchohol......One can erect toll booths on the road to hell, but the resourceful find alternate routes, that are, in fact, short cuts.

After all, the exact same logic would support putting a tax on heterosexual vaginal intercourse. Pregnancies impose significant costs on the health care system whether they're aborted or brought to term.

It's the increased cost of caring for you when you get diabetes or hyperglycemia or lung cancer - diseases that can, in many cases, be avoided. If you're on Medicare or Medicaid, then taxpayers are spending money that could have been spent elsewhere had you been a better decisionmaker.

First: unless you're willing to apply the standard of "avoidability" neutrally, then it's really a bogus excuse. Pregnancy is "avoidable" as well, so ought we regulate the details of peoples' reproduction?

Second: increased premiums are only an externality when insurance companies are not allowed to raise the premiums of those who incur the risks. In a less regulated system, smokers as a group would cover the increased costs of smoking through their premiums.

Third: if groups such as, say, smokers are such a net burden on government-provided health care, why not allow them to "opt out" - pay no taxes into the system, but be eligible for none of the benefits? They might actually be able to then afford an insurance plan that would cover them, or even pay their own way, and government-run system saves money by not having to provide their care.

Conclusion: these externalities you speak of exist only because the government has mandated that they exist. And now you want to use them as justification for further government mandates. That's a rather circular kind of argument.

Fat people and smokers actually, when you do the analysis, save the government money on health care. You see, they die earlier and thus spend less time as 70+-year-old nonproducing consumers of health care resources. And that's before you count the savings to Social Security.

"We used to think that fat was bad for you. Now, we know that there are such things as good fats (monosaturated fats, etc. - which lower cholesterol) and bad fats (trans fats)."

That's incorrect as to nutritionists (correct as to the average idiot layman), but the facts are far more damning of "nutritional science".

Previously, it was believed that saturated fats were the great evil; the more unsaturated the fat, the better. Isomers were not considered a major issue, so there wasn't much concern over whether the unsaturated fats were cis- or trans- isomers. This had practical effects; our food supply switched away from saturated animal fats to omega-6 polyunsaturated vegetable oils and, when you needed something that stayed solid at room temperature, trans-fats.

The current state of the art in lipid nutrition is almost the reverse of that. The Mediterranean diet folks will tell you that omega-6s and trans-fats are the great evils; long chain saturated fats aren't that bad, and the best fats are monounsaturated omega-9 (i.e., olive oil) and omega-3s (found commonly in green vegetables, flax, and fish).

This isn't the "approaching the right result" sort of situation, where we refined a broadly correct doctrine; what nutritionists were telling us 25 years ago simply contradicts what nutritionists tell us today. Given that the quality of evidence hasn't changed much between the two conclusions, I don't see much reason to credit them with real scientific findings.

Well to a certain extent this is quite true considering the other things that people willingly put into their bodies while being fully cognizant of their ill effects. If we lived in a true libertarian society in which we all dealt with our own individual consequences I would agree that the government has no business taxing products for the purposes of social engineering but unfortunately we don’t. I think the collapse of the housing market demonstrated quite well that a good chunk of the populace has almost no grasp of basic finance and here we are all paying a big price for their ignorance. The same goes for our health care system which is burdened to a large extent by a populace that is probably as unfit as anywhere else in the world. When I was a child, there was always the one ‘husky’ kid in class and the very thought of cancelling the hot lunch program was met with cries of starving children. Now 30 years later you have 2-3 candidates for bariatric surgery before they hit their freshman year and yes, we all pay for their choices in the form of taxes and increased insurance premiums. All because quite a few people are too stupid to stop eating after they finished off their first large Papa John’s with all the fixings.Ideally if we could levy a ‘stupid tax’ we could probably pay off the national debt in 4 years.

I tend to lean toward the philosopher-king form of government myself :-)

Again, I'm not advocating state intervention in my life but you must admit, the populace has demonstrated that they can't make sound choices without negatively affecting those of us who tend to follow the path of common sense. If I'm going to be forced to pay for the poor life decisions made by my fellow man (or woman) then I expect the government to start mitigating that cost to me by transferring some of it to those who engage in such behavior.

Example: I have no problems with massive taxes on those who insist on inhaling toxic chemicals into their body thereby increasing health care costs across the board.

"...you must admit, the populace has demonstrated that they can't make sound choices without negatively affecting those of us who tend to follow the path of common sense."The history of government is the search to live off of other people's work.

You would need to pull the weeds in your garden for 55 minutes to get rid of this junk.

Now let's make it happen.

And back and forth and down and up and side and side and reach and exhale and bring it back home, YOU ARE GREAT! Now let's take it to the floor and chest to the knees and spread those legs and bring the head down and shoulders and neck and all the way down to the floor. Sing With Me- We are All American Girls and We Love the Life that We Lead.

The truth is, obesity is at the core of our health problems and health costs, in this country. To discourage it's use (sugared and diet) with a bit of a tax has a lot of up-side to it..

Well, if HFCS is really worse than sugar, the actual problem is that not only was it’s use not discouraged, it was encouraged by government action, ie, subsidizing corn farmers. So thanks, Govt! And, we were given a boatload of wrong information in the 70’s about what was healthy and what was not. So again, thanks. So, why would anybody think the government can fix it? They will just be wrong, again, about everything and create more problems. Let us go back to what we used to eat and many of our problems would go away.

(I do think soda is terrible for you and have pretty much stopped drinking it)

We aren't horses. We don't need to drink a gallon of soda or pop as they say in Wisconsin.

I never used to give a shit about what I ate but I started researching on how and where the shit is made. It turned me off big time. I think people should know where their food comes from and and how it is made. But I think it should it be their own responsiblity.

I have done away with one of my favorite meals after reading the book. Tombstone Pizzas-yum. They are very Wisconsin and very very bad for you. But my abs are loving me and in two weeks I will be on the beach in Ptown whipping off my shirt with confidence and frolicking with the rare clumbers.

I agree Palladian we don't need huge amounts of water. I drink a couple of bottles a day. I drink one every morning when I wake up. I drink Perrier too. Hugs, we have something common. I knew we were destined for something special.

Ga! Still have a thing for Coke and it has to be Coke maybe I should try titrating down.

Which reminds me my Dad grew up during the Depression, in East Pittsburgh-back then Coke actually had cocaine in it or some derivative-he swears to this and he and his gang of kids use to pick a three mile radius for scrap metal just to get their Coke fix.

They even started pulling up...railroad ties or some such thing.

Titus-

I worked in a frozen pizza plant at about 17.

Ummm.....never ate frozen pizza again....I don't want to gross you out with the multitude of stories I got about that.

Palladian said... And this is how totalitarianism begins, by the way. The State usurps some basic industry like health care then claims that it has the right to regulate your lifestyle "because of the enormous cost of bad lifestyle choices to State-run health care". .

Yeah, right....Just as FDR bringing electricity to rural America, creating the TVA, was the "road to totalitarianism". One just has to look at how universal health care in managed in other countries to dismiss Palladian as engaging in hysterical hyperbole.

*************But Henhouse, taking the contrary view, also gets it wrong: - And that sums up a lot of the non-thought on this board...expect the worst and plan that all parties involved will behave badly. Such low expectations you have.

the point of the article is sound. aside from the gazillion plastic bottles and tin cans sugared drinks do very little for anyone except help people get fat faster, destroy teeth and eat up stomach linings.Speaking of non-thought...

4. Is a diet of taffy potentially more harmful than lettuce? Well, duh...But with all our incredible problems, it perhaps is better to remind people to brush their teeth and floss than set up a Ministry of Taffy Regulation and a Ministry of Lettuce Promotion...

"Yeah, right....Just as FDR bringing electricity to rural America, creating the TVA, was the "road to totalitarianism". One just has to look at how universal health care in managed in other countries to dismiss Palladian as engaging in hysterical hyperbole."

I love taking lessons in totalitarianism from the Kleine Goebbels of the Althouse comment section. I bet you could do up a nice centrally planned State, eh Mein Herr?

The problem isn't sugar, the problem is fat people. We need to tax fat people. Not only do they use more than their share of health care, they take up too much space in general. They're also unsightly and block our view of the attractive thin people behind them. They should pay for the many costs they impose on society"

Actually the problem is thin people especially those in the fashion industry who have set a standard of leaness that makes us feel bad about ourselves. I suggest a self esteem tax!

I am actually interested in what people eat and drink. I find is fascinating.

More food and liquid posts please.

I have never been a tea person. I really haven't tried it. Maybe that will be my next adventure.

I do love Vodka though. I drink between 5-8 glasses of vodka tonics a week.

I hate drugs though. I was never into drugs. I tried almost everything once and hated most of it. I liked pot for awhile but then I started getting paranoid when smoking it. Coke is gross. X made me sick. I never did crystal thank God or Special K or any harder drugs. I did do mushrooms a couple of times in college though and had a blast.

I am judgmental about people who do drugs though. If I meet anyone anywhere that is high on something I am grossed out, no matter if they are hot or not.

I grew up in Wisconsin where everyone around me drank Mountain Dew. When I was drinking it on the East Coast people were like WTF? Go to any quick mart in Wisconsin and the largest amount of soda is always rows and rows of Mountain Dew.

Also, I did not have a variety of foods when growing up. Pasta meant spaghetti from Pizza Hut. Mexican was ChiChis. And Seafood was Supper Clubs where all the fish was deep fried and all you can eat with french fries and fried fritters and a "salad bar, all you can eat".

When my parents come out here to eat they only eat spaghetti at italian restaurants because they don't know what any of the other meals are. Also, they have french and thousand island dressings on their salads. Good luck trying to find that anywhere out here. Oh and a brandy alexander natch.

I am not embarassed about that at all that is not my point. But when taking them out to eat here it needs to be very basic. If it is seafood it needs to be deep fried shrimp.

Jen, Cedarford is a regular here. While he is sometimes coherent and even agreeable, he also frequently veers into paragraphs-long explications of the nefarious and widespread influence of International Jewry on the affairs and culture of the United States. He's a quintessential isolationist Jew-hating paleocon, hence my Nazi references. His ability to ascribe a wide spectrum of world problems to Jews makes him fair game for Nazi taunts in my book.

And Godwin's Law does not state that an internet discussion is ended by a reference to Nazis; it merely posits that:

Tonic water is good for you /wink. Especially if you are in malarial areas.

I make green tea for iced tea and while it is still warm, stir in a few tablespoons of ginger syrup I have left over from when I make candied ginger. Delicious.

My family has always been into good home cooking and gourmet cooking. Growing up in California the foods that I took for granted until I met my first husband who was from Ohio where evidently all they eat is Spam, mayonnaise and potatoes. Most of the food that I cooked he had never eaten or attempted to eat

OMG!!! Never buy coffee from a can. I quit doing that when I read an article, years ago, about the amount of foreign matter that is allowed to be in the ground coffee. Rotten beans, dead wasps, rocks, sticks, animal droppings.

If you're talking Cafe Du Monde, you have to use the can up right away before the chicory makes it taste nasty. I don't know if freezing it would help. Vietnamese folks love it though; they even make a knock-off brand.

Titus, at Trader Joe today I found Fage yogurt. So I bought one based on your recommendation. They also had a housebrand pomegranate and green tea drink; I bought one to try. I will keep my eyes open for the Pom version, as well as the other drinks.

DBQ, we have to get together and cook, sometime. Your menu sounds about perfect to me.

Ann said something about sugar being sugar, and it all being "empty calories." The problem with empty calories is that they're not "empty", they actually consume micronutrients in the processes of digestion and metabolism, micronutrients that are therefore unavailable to process more, um, nutritious foods. So sugars in excess can have a more negative impact than just helping you pack on the pounds, they can lead to deficiencies in other necessary substances (calcium being one) because of how they are metabolized.

In the late-evening table-talk seesions at Berchtesgaden they used to have a rule that the first person to mention Cedarford automatically lost the argument.

Sorry I've been away all day, as the biochemical discussions are in my area of expertise (I thought my ketone bodies crack was pretty damned funny, but I guess no one got it). I'd like to point out that sucrose, glucose, and fructose all are glucose and fructose when they actually enter your body (your digestive system is not "inside" your body). They may taste differently, and they may have different effects on satiety (or maybe not), but once they get into your intestinal cells, sucrose is no longer sucrose; it's glucose and fructose. The issue with fructose (and it's higher levels in HFCS) probably has to do with the fact that in the liver, fructose is utilized more rapidly than glucose. It feeds into the pathway whereby glucose is broken down (glycolysis), but it takes a shortcut and bypasses the major regulatory step of the glycolytic pathway. Since no metabolic pathways operate in isolation (and they are coordinately regulated in elegant, efficient, and amazing ways), this skirting of an important regulatory step in glucose metabolism could result in fructose causing essentially ill-controlled effects on other major metabolic pathways, most notably lipid metabolism. In other words, when glycolysis appears to be running too quickly and is told to slow down, fructose (to an extent) ignores those speed limit signs. So there is at least some reason to believe that there is an amount of fructose in your diet beyond which metabolic problems may result.

I know this has nothing to do with the law, American Idol, pinching loaves, or napping pooches, so I'll shut up now. It's rare that I can actually make a comment wherein I know what I'm talking about.

I know I've said this before, but Cafe du Monde was my first job, at 16, in 1976. They'd just begun hiring females, with the exception of WWII, of course. I began drinking coffee at the same time, and I've never been able to tolerate lousy coffee, not after being weaned on hot, fresh chicory coffee, with fresh, steaming milk.

Crimso: hey, I got the ketone bodies thing! I just couldn't think of a decent reply. Thanks for posting on the metabolic pathways issues -- many people think that metabolism is an immutable set of processes, when the reality is much the opposite.

Wow, Beth's three years older than me, and Palladian's 12 years younger. I wouldn't have guessed.

As for chicory coffee, as much as I love New Orleans and all its cuisine, the coffee at Cafe du Monde is the one thing I've never tried -- the times I was there, they didn't serve decaf. I haven't intentionally drunk caffeinated coffee since 1984. I imagine that chicory coffee is really heavenly with beignets...